Quote:
Originally Posted by GMB@BP
Its that whole "did it cost a horse a placing"...that can create a lot of wiggle room for the stewards to make bad decisions.
|
Agreed. The whole concept of "did the incident cost a horse a better placing" is backwards. It would be much more logical if the concept was "did the offender gain an advantage or placing by his actions"....So, the process should be, first determine if there was a foul. After such determination is made, then decide if the winner gained a placing by causing the rule infraction. If it's a determined foul by the rules and the breaking of the rule caused an advantage for the perpetrator, then make the disqualification. If the infraction had no impact on the order of the finish, then let the results stand.......In cases with horses who finish 3rd instead of 2nd (cost a better placing), there is no logic in making a horse who was never going to win, anyway, the declared winner and it is hugely disrespectful to the bettors. Redistributing millions of dollars to undeserving parties at the windows, so an owner like Sheikh Mohammed or Mike Repole can get a few more dollars in purse money makes no sense at all. Besides, owners are well versed in that bad racing luck can cost you a placing, but if you take money out of the pockets from a well deserved bettor (your customers) by putting up a horse who had no business winning, you may lose a customer, for a day, week, year, forever..
